Guilty Until Proven Innocent: The Reid Interrogation Technique

West Chester, OH – -(Ammoland.com)- If you’ve ever been involved in a traffic accident with another driver, you know that responding police have one primary task: to assign blame. One way or another, either you or the other driver is going to get nailed for the accident. Shooting investigations are similar. Once police show up, their task is to find someone who is most likely to be guilty of a crime and gather evidence to prove it. This is fine as long as the police investigate someone who has done something wrong. But when you have justifiably used a firearm to defend yourself, and the police suspect you of wrongdoing, you’re in for a terrible experience . . .

One thing police are trained to use against you is the “Reid Technique.” This is a multi-part method to gather facts, including a 9-step interrogation designed to pressure you into saying things that can be used against you in a court of law.

The investigating officer first performs a “factual analysis” to eliminate improbable suspects and determine who is most likely to be guilty of a crime.

Next comes the “behavior analysis interview” which includes a question and answer session. In addition to simple questions, the officer also asks questions intended to provoke reactions that can be interpreted as truth or deception.

Finally, there’s the “interrogation.” This is referred to as an “accusatory process” because the investigator tells you there is no doubt about your guilt and tries to make you believe he or she understands why you did what you’re accused of doing. It’s not so much a series of questions as it is a monolog by the investigator.

The actual demeanor of the investigator during the course of an interrogation is ideally understanding, patient, and non-demeaning. His or her goal is to make the suspect progressively more and more comfortable with acknowledging the presumed truth about what they are alleged to have done. This is accomplished by the investigators’ first imagining and then offering the subject various psychological constructs as justification for their behavior.

The first admission of guilt is usually obtained by asking the alternative question “Did you plan this out or did it just happen on the spur of the moment?” This technique uses language that contains the unspoken, implicit assumption of guilt. A famous version of this trick is, “Ma’am, have you stopped embezzling money from the bank yet?” The person under interrogation must catch the hidden assumption and contest it to avoid the trap. Otherwise, once the subject confesses to the proposed scenario, then active persuasion stops and the interrogator attempts to develop from the subject corroborating information that can be used to shore up the credibility of the confession. Critics regard this strategy as hazardous, arguing that it is subject to confirmation bias (likely to reinforce inaccurate beliefs or assumptions) and may lead to prematurely narrowing an investigation.

Nine steps of interrogation

The Reid technique’s nine steps of interrogation are:

Step 1 – Direct Confrontation. Lead the suspect to understand that the evidence has led the police to the individual as a suspect. Offer the person an early opportunity to explain why the offense took place.

Step 2 – Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That is, develop themes containing reasons that will justify or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive.

Step 3 – Try to discourage the suspect from denying his guilt. Reid training video: “If you’ve let him talk and say the words ‘I didn’t do it’[…]the more difficult it is to get a confession.”

Step 4 – At this point, the accused will often give a reason why he or she did not or could not commit the crime. Try to use this to move towards the confession.

Step 5 – Reinforce sincerity to ensure that the suspect is receptive.

Step 6 – The suspect will become quieter and listen. Move the theme discussion towards offering alternatives. If the suspect cries at this point, infer guilt.

Step 7 – Pose the “alternative question,” giving two choices for what happened; one more socially acceptable than the other. The suspect is expected to choose the easier option but whichever alternative the suspect chooses, guilt is admitted. There is always a third option which is to maintain that they did not commit the crime.

Step 8 – Lead the suspect to repeat the admission of guilt in front of witnesses and develop corroborating information to establish the validity of the confession.

Step 9 – Document the suspect’s admission or confession and have him or her prepare a recorded statement (audio, video or written).

As you can see, this is less about finding truth than it is about using psychological manipulation to get a confession. This may look obvious as you read this in the relative calm of your home or workplace, and you may assume that you could never be fooled which such a technique. However, remember that after a shooting, you will be in a state of shock. You will experience a swirl of intense emotions and physical effects that will prevent you from thinking clearly.

Police use the Reid Technique because they know how vulnerable you are and will take full advantage of this to assign blame and “get their man.”

Again, this is what the police are supposed to do. Their motives are good. However, in self defense shootings, innocent people often fall victim to aggressive investigative techniques like this. Even if you don’t give a confession, you could be manipulated into saying enough to give a prosecutor evidence to convict you.

Knowing what the police are doing can help you avoid this trap. But, as always, our advice remains the same. Don’t try to outsmart the police, just shut up.

Assert your 5th Amendment Right of remaining silent and talk to legal counsel before talking to the police.

About Second Call Defense
We believe deeply in the Second Amendment and the natural right of every citizen to self defense and the defense of loved ones. However, even though most states now allow you to own, use, and carry firearms for personal protection, you continue to face dramatic and potentially devastating consequences for doing what you have a legal right to do.

They will of course ask you “Why do you need a lawyer? Do have something to hide.? The answer is no but I understand that this a legal process and I don’t feel comfortable talking to you without the presence of legal counsel. Make sure you have at attorney on speed dial. If you are involved in a DGU call 911 then call your lawyer. If you are lucky he/she will arrive about the same time as the police.

The answer is no but I understand that this a legal process and I don’t feel comfortable talking to you without the presence of legal counsel.
No. The answer is: “I won’t answer any questions without speaking with my attorney. I would like to leave. Am I free to go?”

If you are involved in a DGU call 911 then call your lawyer.
My lawyer said to call him first, letting somebody else at the scene call 911. Or if I’m alone, he said to get to a safe location, call him, and let him call 911. The idea is to not talk on a recorded phone line, under stress, with a 911 operator trained to get prosecutable statements out of the caller.
Additionally, there is no legal requirement to inform the police of one’s involvement with a shooting, unlike, for example, a car accident.

AGREE 100%
Bernie Goetz was a Putz! Remember him?
New York man known for shooting four young black men when they allegedly tried to mug him on a New York City Subway train in Manhattan on December 22, 1984. He fired five shots seriously wounding all four. They had sharpened screw drivers????
Nine days later he surrendered to police and was eventually charged with attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment, and several firearms offenses. A jury found him not guilty of all charges except for one count of carrying an unlicensed firearm, for which he served two-thirds of a one-year sentence. In 1996, one of the shot men, who had been left paraplegic and brain damaged as a result of his injuries, obtained a civil judgment of $43 million against Goetz.

I am not an attorney, but I understand from recent cases that if you answer ANY question put to you by the police they can, in some cases, infer that you have waived your fifth amendment rights, after which it seems to be very difficult to get them back again. The legal reasons for this escape my non-lawyer mind.

That said, if you once make the statement, “I want a lawyer.” I think it would be in-advisable to respond even with yes or no to any further questions. Any answer is a bad answer. Make the STATEMENT again, “I want a lawyer.” and shut up. As was shown in a video on this site not too long ago, ANY fact relevant to the event in question can and should be established in court, NOT in the interrogation room. You are under no obligation to give the police or the DA any assistance in convicting you and you are, in theory at east, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The problem was she invoked it then she kept talking. Is she in jail yet? The CIA director? That Alexander guy? They went balls deep on Roger Clemens for lying to Congress and nothing on these criminals?

Actually Lois Lerner has, to date, not been held accountable for first talking and then pleading the 5th. Congress has not required her to return and testify under oath since the day she pleaded the 5th. So far, she has gotten away with it.

Ummm…because the 5th amendment says I have the right to legal representation? that’s all you need to know. If you think this makes me guilty, then by all means arrest me now. But I’m not talking to you until my lawyer appears.

Massad Ayoob suggests to say to the police that you will sign a complaint against the perpetrator and to point out any evidence and then shut up. He might also have mentioned one or two other things to say. This man has truck-loads of credibility.

It’s not a good start to be arrested by a cop just wanting to make an expedient arrest.

I hope you get him to cite the legal opinions and case law that have formed the foundation of his advice about talking to the police and trying to point out evidence. “Anything you say can and will be used AGAINST you” Nothing in the Miranda warning has said that your statements to police will used to assist you in a court of law.

You have the right to remain silent – so shut up.
You have the right to have an attorney both for consultation and present during any questioning – Demand and attorney and keep your mouth shut, let your attorney speak.

I remember in my ccw class the instructor suggested an alternative way to maintain your right to remain silent: “Officer, I fully intend to cooperate with your investigation, I just need some time to gather my thoughts and contact my attorney.” Or something along those lines.

It’s less socially awkward, because it doesn’t sound like an outright refusal. I think he mentioned that the police themselves are trained to answer this way, if they are brought under suspicion.

He also suggested that there are a couple things that you probably should say: 1. let them know if anyone is injured and needs medical attention, and 2. let them know if there is someone out there that has fled the scene (especially if they might be armed).

Shooting someone is traumatic no matter who you are (unless you’re insane or drugged). You NEED some time to gather yourself together, regardless of what anyone says. Don’t forget, the po-po are offered counseling after any type of shooting incident.

The NYC PD (and maybe many other departments) gives an Officer who discharges his weapon 48 hours to “Compose” themselves and get a PBA Lawyer.
Why anybody would speak to the police at all is beyond me. Even a speeding ticket, contest it in front of the Magistrate. Not the “Roid Ranger” filling a quota.

Not to change the subject… (Please don’t let the comments go off in this direction for too long),

… but who taught her that terrible grip! Support hand firmly grasping the strong forearm? Some anti-gun moron in the props department? No police department or other government agency in the world would ever teach that grip.

The picture above is probably from “Law and Order: Criminal Intent”; Julianne Nicholson is the actress pretending to be a NYPD detective. If whoever it is providing technical advice to the show is from the NYPD, maybe her stance comes from the NYPD proficiency and accuracy with firearms skills set.

I’ve seen that stance and grip only a few other times over the years always on some cop drama or movie mostly in the 70’s or 80’s.

Anyone who wants an object lesson in how an interrogator can and does trip someone up in the interview process only needs to watch re-runs of “The Closer.” Even if you are innocent, you are at a distinct disadvantage when facing an even moderately competent interrogator. STFU.

If there are no hostile witnesses, why stick around in the first place? Pick up your brass and disappear. Avoid the Zimmerman scenario if you can. If they do find you, then lawyer up. Then the Zimmerman persecution is a good defense for leaving.

Not good advice. You or a witness should be calling 911. Flee and the cops will assume the worst, and you will be digging yourself out of a deep deep hole. There have been incidents where the would-be muggers have called 911 in a DGU and said that they had been assaulted by a man with a gun. Then the cops come looking for you with their guns drawn. Unpleasant at best, fatal at worst.

I cannot fathom a remotely reasonable argument for picking up your brass unless you’re just THAT addicted to reloading.

For one thing, in the heat of the moment, with the possibility of other threats, getting down to look for and snatch up stray casings means that not only are you putting yourself in an unnecessarily vulnerable position, you’re probably going to miss a shell or two. Especially since many people involved in DGUs cannot remember how many times they fired, and often think they fired two or three times when they fired at least twice as much.

Second, the act casts suspicion on you. If you were acting innocently, why were you trying to hide your involvement?

Third, if you’re paranoid that law enforcement is going to go on a witch hunt and use your brass to prosecute you for murder, you’re better off leaving it on the ground and errr modifying your gun. It’s not hard. CSI paints an unrealistic picture of matching casings to guns.

Fourth, shell casings don’t establish intent. They’re used to establish whodunit. If it’s a DGU, trying to obfuscate that looks really, really bad. Your legal defense should be “I had to shoot him to protect myself,” not “I didn’t do it.” The reasons why should be obvious.

It’s clear you’re no assassin, m’kay, because you’d never get anything done, m’kay, because you’re too in love with the sound of your own voice, m’kay.

By the way, I’m impressed you found yet another way to be a horrible ambassador for the gun-owning community. You could have just said, “Hey, look at this. I silenced a Nagant revolver, and it’s really frickin’ quiet, and pretty damn cool.” But no, you had to go walking around in assassin land, providing awesome, easily accessible soundbites for anyone who dislikes what you’re doing.

I realize you’re allowed to say whatever you want, but once again you’ve proved you have zero grasp of the concept of discretion.

There will be someone who saw or heard something, guaranteed. Unless you are out in the middle of nowhere, rural USA when the situation goes down, SOMEONE knows SOMETHING.

Better to get your side of the story into the police record before some old lady across the parking lot says “I saw a man shoot another man! He’s here and looks like ”

Perhaps this 911 call looks better: “My name is , I was attacked, send help!” When they get there it’s pretty easy to establish you are the 911 caller, and while the cops may still look to you as the suspect of the crime, your statement that you were attacked is still in the official record.

If you fled the scene without a 911 call, and only the old lady calls in, guess what? You will have a BOLO out on you, and you will be arrested and treated like a murderer. Even if you get off on the shooting, you could easily get convicted of any number of other charges for leaving.

The first person to call the cops to report/complain usually wins in almost every kind of scenario. You want to be that guy. Though it looks like it didn’t work for that dude from Ohio with the intruder and shotgun.

Be the one to call the police, tell them the witnesses then lawyer up. Say nothing else until advised by counsel. Even if it was justified, a break in and the person is dead on your floor with a gun in their hand still lawyer up. My 2 centa worth, and I am NOT a lawyer. Just gan owner with a healthy distrust of the police, from my own family getting jammed up for something they did not do.

” If you’ve ever been involved in a traffic accident with another driver, you know that responding police have one primary task: to assign blame.”

RF again proves he is not just ignorant of what police do, but worse, writes as though he knows what he’s talking about. I have responded to dozens of accidents and in not ONE was my primary task “to assign blame.” I don’t get insurance money or tips for citations. If there’s a DUI involved or someone is clearly to blame I’ll address that… secondary to rendering aid. We’ve also had defensive gun uses where the homeowner wasn’t arrested because he cooperated at the scene and the situation was quickly made clear by his statements, which gave a narrative to the physical evidence. Imagine that.

You know, it’s interesting, all of these internet lawyers talk about clamming up all time without realizing the reaction that can get. Normal innocent people want to clear themselves. Cops are smart enough to know this, and recognize a normal citizen’s true story as being reasonable. There’s a reason the police didn’t lock Zimmerman up until politics got in the way, and his videoed testimony actually helped him. You can remain silent if you’re innocent, but it might end up biting you.

Come on! Seriously people, are you all blind?!?! I am getting so tired of reading comments lambasting RF, Nick, Dan, etc. about grammar and spelling errors or misguided logic in their posts when the very first line of the article clearly states “By (Insert Authors Name Here)” or “So and So Writes” which should be an immediate indication to anyone with half a brain that the article is penned by someone other than the linked name at the very top of the post above the image! Often times, the staff is re-posting articles with the permission of the original author or the permission of the original publishing source, which means they probably don’t have permission to edit it for spelling and grammar errors. If you disagree with the statements therein, fine. Just make sure you assign your blame properly. As to your assertion that the author is just an internet lawyer, this post was penned by Second Call Defense, which is a law firm, employing **GASP** lawyers. Granted, that doesn’t necessarily mean they got it right, but they aren’t just some Joe Shmo that has no legal training. Considering that this firm’s primary service is to provide legal assistance in DGU’s, they may actually have some experience and expertise in that area. In general, the staff at TTAG makes a concerted effort to avoid topics on which they are not experts and defer to the guest articles from the experts.

I appreciate the idea that YOU might be a pretty decent guy of integrity who is interested in the truth and acts accordingly. Absolutely nothing guarantees that the officers responding to any given incident are like you. We have all seen video of police officers acting in a disgraceful, immoral, unethical, and/or illegal manner. If I am ever involved in a self-defense incident, I am not going to roll the dice and hope that the people who respond are decent people of integrity and talk freely. I am going to take the conservative route and speak only to an attorney.

Exactly. The Police are not the final authority on whether or not you get charged, that is the DA’s call. Subsequently, it doesn’t matter if the cops don’t arrest you because you gave them the warm fuzzies at the scene. The DA can still choose to prosecute, using anything you said to the police against you if possible. I’ll just keep my mouth shut thank you very much, even if that means getting arrested.

I was trying to find a way to ask the same question but you stated it quite clearly.

I’m planning on joining the ANJRPC since they have several lawyers who have agreed to answer legal questions for members, and I imagine that (although probably expensive once actually hired) they would be better in the case of a DGU than a state-appointed attorney.

Some court appointed attorneys are OK, some are not. Some have lots of experience, many are wet behind the ears and didn’t get picked up by some law firm after graduation. But you don’t get to choose. You are at the mercy of the luck of the draw. Do you want to take that chance?

Go to a few local gun shops around you and ask the staff. I know most around here have a few cards of different attorneys that specialize in robbery/DGU situations. During my concealed carry class the instructor passed out the card of a firm that specializes in DGUs and on the back of the card is a convenient script to read at the scene.

Texas Law Shield is like $13 a month, $15 if you have a CHL. I’m sure there are other firms that provide the same service. Any gun related incident you are covered, they are on retainer 24/7 so you can call for legal advice. Cheap insurance if you intend to carry.

Police can and will lie to you in order to get information. Do not fall for it. Know the rules and the procedures and the law, and do not give them anything or “deal” with them in any fashion. They are your #1 enemy after a defensive shooting.

Reading about law enforcement on TTAG is like reading Nancy Pelosi’s take on the 2A; so full if misinformation and misunderstanding that it boggles ones mind. Cops do not go to traffic accident’s to assign blame. They go to render aid, to document evidence, to gather information, to collect witness statements, to restore peace and eventually to prepare a report documenting the facts of what happened based on the available evidence. Same goes for pretty much any call for service. In the free state’s of America a legally justified DGU is going to be determined to be a legally justified DGU. Maybe or maybe not if you live in a vigorously anti-gun anti-self defense state with a political climate the vilifies anyone with a firearm. In which case you should have already moved. Even there Cops are not (always) your enemy, low information voters and ignorant politicians are.

Paint a rosey pic if you want. Cops routinely stop people for extremely minor infractions knowing they will find more. In fact they are taught to do this. This applies to all stops, including accidents.

The young lady in the picture appears to be actress Julianne Nicholson and the scene looks to be from an episode of Law & Order: Criminal Intent on which she played Detective Megan Wheeler for a couple of seasons.
So, I’m not surprised she doesn’t know how to hold a gun – or maybe her wrist is just tired.

In West Virginia during a bad weather day(snow) I was involved in a head on collision with a woman. Both cars were badly damaged but we weren’t. After a state trooper spent a good deal of time investigating the incident he filled out the part of the report that assigns fault as follows. “I find no fault or blame with either driver. Cars were not defective. This collision was an act of God.” He actually used act of God in the report.

On a different subject but making a comment on the picture above, I have worked in the TV & Film business for 35 years and I have yet seen an actor properly handle a firearm! As you can see in the picture above the female cop is improperly pointing a Glock! This is a result of the producers being cheap and only hiring a technical consultant on the pilot for good measure but as you can see the actors quickly forget the proper techniques, in this case both hands should be wrapped around the gun and the leading hand should be positioned as high as possible where the web of the thumb and forefinger are. There should be no space between the frame and the web of the hand so that the barrel is positioned as low as possible to minimize recoil!

The “Reid Technique” has been around for the corporate security community for at least 20 years that I know of, Not to say it’s any good. I suspect poor use of the technique would be a bonanza for the defense.

I would not say anything to a police officer about how I “fully intend to cooperate” because I do not. I would say something like, “I understand you are just doing your job officer, but I cannot answer any questions at this time.”

If they press on with something like, “Why not? Do you have something to hide?” or something like that, I’d say, “Officer, I am exercising my Fifth Amendment-protect right against having to act as a witness against myself.”

I would not flee the scene if I was not sure if that was legal or not, what I would do is call the police, but not say on the phone that I shot anyone. I’d instead say that someone was shot and needs help. I would avoid saying that I did the shooting or even that I was attacked by that person, out of fear that this somehow could be used against me.

I figure I’ll let the police find out the whole story through my lawyer about how I was attacked and had to shoot the person, then it can be defended as a DGU. But by calling the police, you can’t be accused of anything for fleeing the scene, and also the person shot gets help.

If the police arrest me, they at maximum can hold you for at most a few days before you have to be brought before a judge and have the charges being brought against you read to you. It is the prosecutor that decides whether or not to formally bring charges against you, and one of the things they go by are what things did you tell to the police.

So while being arrested might make your life miserable for a few days, long-term it could save you a lot of headache and keep you out of prison.

One thing I do wonder though is should you at least tell the police the gun lying at the scene is yours, or just let them figure this out for themselves? If the gun is registered legally to you, they ought to be able to figure this out themselves right? It seems like an obvious question, but I’d be too afraid that just by answering that one little question, I’d be waiving my 5th amendment. So I’d still be quiet and risk a night or two in jail just to be safe.

To Hannibal the cop:

“Clamming up” is your right. If the cop gives a bad reaction, that’s the cop’s fault, not the person’s. The cop ought to know better that someone exercising their right does not imply guilt. And yes, sometimes answering questions at the scene can clear things up, but it’s a huge roll of the dice as pointed out by a poster. Not all cops are good. Furthermore, a person can accidentally admit to another crime they inadvertently committed (for many for example, “I fired a warning shot…”).

Wrong, it is not about psychological manipulation of an innocent person, it is about breaking down the barriers a guilty person has to confessing.

An innocent person’s reaction to the Reid technique is instant denial. A guilty person seeks out rationalization of his or her crime, they seek to minimize it, they seek to excuse it. That is not what an innocent person does. An innocent person denies the crime, an innocent person demands a strong punishment of the perpetrator, an innocent person does not minimize or rationalize the crime.

One important aspect of the Reid technique that you failed to report, is that the Reid technique uses observation of the subject as well as a non-confrontational approach. One such observation of subjects is their physical reaction to the interview. A guilty subject closes up while interviewed, while an innocent person moves closer to the interviewer, opening up their body position. A guilty person moves back in on themselves, closing themselves off, folding their arms across their body, not looking at the interviewer, and becomes quiet as their knowledge of their guilt becomes apparent to the interviewer.

People of the gun are reacting to an over-reaching attack on gun rights and a dictorial regime by accepting and aligning themselves with criminal behavior. This can be because they anticipate illegal and unconstitutional activity by law enforcement or that they are over-reacting.

Mostly it is because people of the gun are not in on the political fight except on gun issues. They are ignoring Obamacare and amnesty for illegal aliens, two issues that are undermining all rights in this country, one by overthrowing the Constitution, the other by importing anti-gun illegal aliens.

Your enemy is not the Reid technique, because the Reid technique was developed to interview and obtain uncoerced confessions of the guilty.